Airco D.H.2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2019
- The Airco D.H. 2 was a British, pusher-configuration, single-seat, biplane fighter of World War 1. It entered squadron service in March, April and May of 1916, in time for the end of the Fokker Scourge. Seeing service on the Western Front from early 1916 to Spring of 1917, it lasted until early 1918 in other theatres. An early design by Geoffrey de Havilland, who is perhaps best known for the superlative Mosquito of World War 2.
I've finally found the aircraft I have been trying to Identify.
Thank you Forgotten Aviation & also, a big 'Hello' 👋 from Stoke-on-Trent in Staffordshire.
I've also subscribed. 😁
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed it is.
This is a very well researched and presented video that gives a very clear and concise development and history of the DH.2. I immensely enjoyed this presentation!! Thank you!! 👏👏👏👏👍
Thank you Jerry. Very well presented.
Glad you enjoyed it.
The fact that these aircraft were forced to soldier on in the face of clearly superior designs on the German side, clearly shows some antiquated thinking on the British part, which had an obvious negative effect on the aircrews forced to take these up daily! The loss of such great tacticians such as my Hero Major Lanoe Hawker is sad indeed!! Such short sighted thinking almost followed the RAF during WW2 at it’s start! Thankfully brighter minds were in play!! Lessons forgotten during war( history) doomed all!! Thanks for your content!!
The entire period of WW1 & the period before WW2 were characterised rapid & at times frantic development in aviation so it is hardly surprising that sometimes a great improvement like synchronised machine guns outclassed parrellel developments which arrived over periods of months not years.
My father made a pusher plane with a bicycle as the front assembly for the Kremer prize in the 70's. It did fly, but needed more tuning to navigate the required course for the prize. The Gossamer Condor won it soon after.
These pioneers are insanely courageous. Like flying a kite with an engine. On top of that...to fight with it and survive!
Compared with modern aircraft, or even aircraft of World War 2, it boggles the mind, doesn't it?
I don’t see courage as a factor; they were swept forward by the adventure of it.
G'day,
Yay Team !
Keep on keepin' on...
Have a good one.
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@kenrobba5831
G"day,
You're not wrong, but that phase didn't often last long.
When one is flying a "Brand New, Cutting-Edge" bit of technology, at the time...; then whatever it's shortcomings have been seen to consist of, years or decades, or even only weeks later on - none of that goes into the calculations of a youngster (18 to 25 or so) who ALWAYS wanted to fly and now the King/Kaiser/President or Czar has commissioned them to go and do their best...
I used to fly with Single-Swaged Flying and Drag Wires (Sailboat practice, y'see), and everything held together..., but I was in the 3rd Pre-Production Prototype, with only an 8 Hp ,"Pixie-Minor (derived from a Victa-120cc Lawnmower)..., and I had a ball...
The dozen Production Mark-1s though all had 12.5 Hp "Pixie-Majors (Victa-160s...), and the extra power meant extra vibrations, and those extra Vibes caused about 4 of the 12 to fold one Wing back along the Fuselage and spin down into Splatsville..., when a Drag-Brace's Single-Swaged Thimble let go.
The Mark-2s all had Double-Swaged Flying and Drag Wires, and 18 Hp Fuji Robins.
The Mk -3s had Wing Warping, instead of Elevator & Rudder only - both on the Joystick...; and some Mk-3s had 35-Hp Rotax 377s.
It was 20 years after I stopped flying the 8 Hp Prototype before I ever heard the story about why so many of the Mk-1s folded a Wing and augered in.
So, there was no actual "bravery" involved, because I considered myself to be quite well prepared ; and I quite enjoyed the idea that Wilbour and Orville's 1903 Flyer was a better Aeroplane (8-Hp vs 12.5 Hp, 3-Axis Controls vs 2-Axis, and Double-Surface Aerofoils with internal Spars & Ribs vs Single-Surface Dacron with Aluminium Battens in Pockets...).
I had a heavily overdeveloped Biggles Fetish, apparently ; and if I'd had a RE-8 like my maternal Grandfather, or a Camel like my paternal Grandfather's brother...; I would have cheerfully, DELIGHTEDLY, had a go at either, or both, when I was 17.
After one has crashed though, and seen a few other people suddenly turn themselves into Compost, while excercising their Levitation Fantasies for the fun of it...; one's perspective changes.
I suspect that if I'd been getting shot at, while being expected to pursue and chastise the King's Enemies lurking aloft...., THAT would have changed the calculation, if one lived sufficiently long as to think it through ; and by that stage they were pretty well fenced-in by fear of White Feathers if they asked to be excused.
"Free Flying Lessons" from the Military generally turn out to become very Very VERY costly, when one has to step up for the Do Or Die Clause regarding Obedience to the Chain of Command.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
ThankX for your perspective ! I enjoyed your input and can disagree or argue. I remember stumbling onto a book about WWI airplanes - was fascinated ever since. ‘Have a predilection to the paint jobs on German aircraft; the Great War and the conflict ‘39 - ‘45 !!!
Real like your work.
No mention of Lanoe Hawker, Britain's first ace?
Certain mono planes are manageable, certain monoplanes have definitely perished. The Fokker DVIII Bruno Stachel flew had definitely failed.
Brilliant documentary Jerry, it's put me right on several points and has made my radio control model all the more interesting, cheers 👍
Very good video
Thank you!
How did they swing the prop on those pushers? Did they step inside the framework?
They sure did. There's some footage of other pusher birds on youtube and that's exactly what you have to do.
This airplane i didnt know it fought for a year againts German planes before the tractor kinds.. And Im into flying knowledge since around 1962.. PPL since 1970.. Visibility is king in Air Combat.
Pushers and tractors shared air combat from the start. Pushers had the advantage that it was easier to install armament. From a practical perspective that was their only advantage.
@@Forgotten_Aviation . I read that engine used was the problem. Then they went to put better engines on tractor airplanes instead.
The engine was a problem in that it's location made necessary a lot of drag-inducing structure that affected performance. Having the engine at the front removed this problem.
@@Forgotten_Aviation I read that pusher props are more efficient. But they can add a rear CG problem too. The fastest prop airplanes lately has been those twin pushers Avantis and Starships i read. Look weird, but they are faster too.. Nazis in WW2 1944 were into that too, but B17's destroyed the factory many times over..
There are advantages to the pusher design. Most notably that the aircraft essentially flies through undisturbed air. However in the early days the drag inducing necessities of the design made this irrelevant. Aircraft as a serious concept had only been around for a few years, and much was yet to be learned.
O.k., help a non-engineer/aircraft historian out here. Pusher configuration...no airwash over the body or wings, only the tail, much better visibility, no prop wash into the pilot's face, and no propeller to have to sync nose-mounted guns to. So, why did the pusher config largely wind up consigned to the dustbin while view blocking propwash in yer face tractor configs became de rigeur?
Several reasons. The first is aerodynamics. The method of attaching the tail to the fuselage around the engine and propeller causes undesirable drag. Secondly, the location is less efficient than tractor style installations as the propeller is working in disturbed air from the fuselage. There's also a problem with ground clearance. Because the propeller is further back, with a tail-dragger style undercarriage it brings the tips of blades close enough to the ground for damage to be a concern. Finally, cooling is more problematic as a tractor style engine forces air through the engine. This does not happen with a pusher. These issues can be dealt with, but the solutions generally involved more weight, and early aircraft really couldn't afford more of that.
@ Pusher airplanes hold speed records for props. Even today. Nazis were building them to 500 mph in 1944, but B17's destroyed the factory twice..
All the current speed records for propeller aircraft are actually held by tractor designs. The current record is an F8F Bearcat at 528 mph. The fastest piston engined aircraft produced by the Germans during World War 2 was the Do. 335 which was a pusher / puller design that achieved 472 mph. If you're thinking of the Blohm & Voss P 208, it was designed for a speed of 490 mph, but as far as I can recall, it never flew.
@@Forgotten_Aviation Had they tried to break that record with a pusher of the same horsepower?? I think i will cost too much to build one from plans. Those tractors are WW2 designs that only needed modifications to improve the speed. Too bad the German Arrow its not around to modify for greater speed. I think a pusher will go faster than an equivalent hp tractor..
@@Forgotten_Aviation Also it looks like those rear engines used to overheat a lot. Same happened with C337's in hot weather..
Maybe pushers are supposed to be exposed to the air like those small pusher 100 mph LSA's we had last few decades. And that will kill the speed at 500 mph.. Well, there goes my idea of a pusher record setter.. LOL.
@@outwiththem Not sure if its worth the expense of the experiment.
@@outwiththem There seems to be a potential issue with pushers overheating, but with a largely exposed engine like the Airco D.H.2 probably not such an issue. I'm not aware of particular issues with that problem in that aircraft. The history of flight is full of engines overheating, normally fixed by (insert technical explanation here), so it's as much a factor of design as it is an inherent weakness in the concept.
Come back Jerry.
ealih❤❤❤❤❤😊